chapter 14._

"It was on December 14, 1888, that the Panama Canal Company stopped payments. Under the auspices of the French Government, a parliamentary inquiry was started in the hope of finding some means of saving the enterprise. Facts soon came to light, which, in the opinion of many, justified a prosecution. The indignation of the shareholders against the Count de Lesseps, his son, and the other Directors, waxed loud. In addition to ruinous miscalculations, these men were charged with corrupt expenditure with a view to influence public opinion. … The gathering storm finally burst on November 21 [1892], when the interpellation in regard to the Canal question was brought forward in the Chamber. M. Delahaye threw out suggestions of corruption against a large number of persons, alleging that 3,000,000 francs had been used by the company to bribe 150 Senators and Deputies. Challenged to give their names, he persisted in merely replying that if the Chamber wanted details, they must vote an inquiry. … It was ultimately agreed, by 311 to 243, to appoint a special Committee of 33 Members to conduct an investigation. The judicial summonses against the accused Directors were issued the same day, charging them with 'the use of fraudulent devices for creating belief in the existence of a chimerical event, the spending of sums accruing from issues handed to them for a fixed purpose, and the swindling of all or part of the fortune of others.' The case being called in the Court of Appeals, November 25, when all of the defendants—M. Ferdinand de Lesseps; Charles, his son; M. Marius Fontanes, Baron Cottu, and M. Eiffel—were absent, it was adjourned to January 10, 1893. … On November 28, the Marquis de la Ferronaye, followed by M. Brisson, the Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry, called the attention of the Government to the rumors regarding the death of Baron Reinach, and pressed the demand of the Committee that the body be exhumed, and the theory of suicide be tested. But for his sudden death, the Baron would have been included in the prosecution. He was said to have received immense sums for purposes of corruption; and his mysterious and sudden death on the eve of the prosecution started the wildest rumors of suicide and even murder. Public opinion demanded that full light be thrown on the episode; but the Minister of Justice said, that, as no formal charges of crime had been laid, the Government had no power to exhume the body. M. Loubet would make no concession in the matter; and, when M. Brisson moved a resolution of regret that the Baron's papers had not been sealed at his death, petulantly insisted that the order of the day 'pure and simple' be passed. This the Chamber refused to do by a vote of 304 to 219. The resignation of the Cabinet immediately followed. … A few days' interregnum followed during which M. Brisson and M. Casimir-Périer successively tried in vain to form a Cabinet. M. Ribot, the Foreign Minister, finally consented to try the task, and, on December 5, the new Ministry was announced. … The policy of the Government regarding the scandal now changed. … In the course of the investigation by the Committee, the most startling evidence of corruption was revealed. It was discovered that the principal Paris papers had received large amounts for puffing the Canal scheme. M. Thierrée, a banker, asserted that Baron Reinach had paid into his bank 3,390,000 francs in Panama funds, and had drawn it out in 26 checks to bearer. … On December 13, M. Rouvier, the Finance Minister, resigned, because his name had been connected with the scandal. … In the meantime, sufficient evidence had been gathered to cause the Government, on December 16, to arrest M. Charles de Lesseps, M. Fontane, and M. Sans-Leroy, Directors of the Canal Company, on the charge, not, as before, of maladministration of the company's affairs, but of corrupting public functionaries. This was followed by the adoption of proceedings against five Senators and five Deputies.

_Quarterly Register of Current History, March, 1893._

{2416}

"The trial of the De Lesseps, father and son, MM. Fontane, Cottu, and Eiffel, began January 10, before the court of appeals. MM. Fontane and Eiffel confessed, the latter to the bribery of Hebrard, director of 'Le Temps,' a newspaper, with 1,750,000 francs. On February 14, sentence was pronounced against Ferdinand and Charles De Lesseps, each being condemned to spend five years in prison and to pay a fine of 3,000 francs; MM. Fontane and Cottu, two years and 3,000 francs each; and M. Eiffel, two years and 20,000 francs. … On March 8, the trial of the younger de Lesseps, MM. Fontane, Baihaut, Blondin, and ex-Minister Proust, Senator Beral, and others, on charges of corruption, began before the assize court. … De Lesseps, … with MM. Baihaut and Blondin, was found guilty March 21, and sentenced to one year more of imprisonment. M. Blondin received a two-year sentence; but M. Baihaut was condemned to five years, a fine of 75,000 francs, and loss of civil rights. The others were acquitted."

_Cyclopedic Review of Current History, volume 3, number 1 (1803)._

"On June 15 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment in the first trial on the ground that the acts had been committed more than three years before the institution of proceedings, reversing the ruling of the trial court that a preliminary investigation begun in 1891 suspended the three years' prescription. Fontane and Eiffel were set at liberty, but Charles de Lesseps had still to serve out the sentence for corruption."

_Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia, 1893, page 321._

The enemies of the Republic had wished to establish the venality of the popular representatives; "they succeeded only in showing the resistance that had been made to a temptation of which the public had not known before the strength and frequency. Instead of proving that many votes had been sold, they proved that many were found ready to buy them, which was very different."

_P. De Coubertin, L'Evolution Frarçaise sous la Troisième Republique, page 266._

PANATHENÆA, The Festival of the.

See PARTHENON AT ATHENS.

PANDECTS OF JUSTINIAN.

See CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS.

PANDES.

See CASTE SYSTEM OF INDIA.

PANDOURS.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1567-1604.

PANICS OF 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1835-1837, 1873, 1893-1894; and TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1846-1861.

PANIPAT, PANNIPUT, Battles of (1526, 1556, and 1761).

See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605; and 1747-1761.

PANIUM, Battle of (B. C. 198).

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

PANJAB, The.

See PUNJAB.

PANNONIA AND NORICUM.

"The wide extent of territory which is included between the Inn, the Danube, and the Save—Austria, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, the Lower Hungary, and Sclavonia—was known to the ancients under the names of Noricum and Pannonia. In their original state of independence their fierce inhabitants were intimately connected. Under the Roman government they were frequently united."

_E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,